Nothing prevents them from doing this, but the whole point of having video directly supported in HTML was so browsers were not dependent on plugins. The only open standard that is viable for that, however, is H.264. WebM isn't open and it isn't a standard.

I understand all that!

But if Google wants to play their silly game using WebM as a decoy for Flash -- why not provide an alternative decoy? That way h.264 remains viable to every browser on every OS regardless of how Google and Adobe play with each other.

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

H264 is not an open standard. Read the W3C Patent Policy. Open standards are required to be royalty-free. Even Microsoft agrees with this definition.

And even if you disagree, it still violates the W3C Patent Policy whether you call it "open" or not. So it's not compatible with an open web.

H.264 is an open standard, and there are no W3C standards on codecs, nor will there be, so your argument is meaningless. WebM is not open nor is it a standard, it's completely controlled by one company, Google, so there's no difference in that regard between WebM and Flash.

That's not what I meant.
HTML5, referring to the *full* standard (<video> and <audio>, but also Geolocation, Drag and Drop, WebSockets, etc etc etc) was not defined by W3C!

It is now.

Quote:

If you read the story of HTML5 you see that the original draft was proposed by "WHATWG", a group formed by Apple, Mozilla and Opera.

If you read the full story of HTML5, it was started by Opera, and they always wanted it to be standardized through the W3C. They gathered support from Mozilla, Apple and Google, and asked the W3C to standardize it.

I know what a joint venture is... But I don't understand what this has to do with my post...
I was telling an user that I don't think a 100% free and open video format may ever be a good solution!

You quoted my post in which I described the business model of the MPEG LA (without naming it) and said that my proposal (and thus the one of the MPEG LA) will not work because it is not 'commercial enough'.

My point was that if you start to describe the business model of the MGEG LA in general terms (without mentioning names) people will not criticise it for being too closed or too commercial. You even went beyond my expectations and criticised the MGEG LA's model as being too open and too non-commercial.

H264 is not an open standard. Read the W3C Patent Policy. Open standards are required to be royalty-free. Even Microsoft agrees with this definition.

And even if you disagree, it still violates the W3C Patent Policy whether you call it "open" or not. So it's not compatible with an open web.

What the W3C says on the matter is irrelevant, because H.264 is not listed in W3C's HTML5 specification - neither is webM - because the specification leaves it up to the Browser developers (And by extension, the market) to decide which codec or codecs to use. By your argument, browsers shouldn't support JPEG, MP3, AAC (And I could go on).

You know what I hate about FOSS Advocates, and the majority of people bleating about "The Open Web"? They're hypocrites. They go on and on endlessly about how if things aren't "free" or "open", they're inherently evil, because they present barriers to this and that. So as a solution, they advocate ripping these things out and using FOSS equivalents, licensed under things like GPL, and enforcing this change on everyone.

I don't know about you, but my definition of free and open means giving commercial products a chance too. Free and open should mean you're free to choose and access is available to everyone.

Quite what makes FOSS Advocates think they own the web, or that the vast majority of consumes actually care about their ideological battle with commercial software vendors, is beyond me.

... The fact that [Google] are actively using [WebM] themselves just goes to show how sure they are that there are no patent violations. ...

It doesn't show anything of the kind. Google is notorious for stealing the intellectual property of others -- just look at the wholesale copyright infringement that is the Google Books Program. They just think they are big enough and have enough lawyers to get away with it. They were wrong about that with Android, and they will be wrong in regard to WebM.

Correction: Every browser can use plugins like Flash, and Flash might use h264 or some other codec, but the browser still doesn't support those codecs. Basically, the codec used by Flash is irrelevant to the browser.

Quote:

Only a small percentage can play WebM. Even when the next version of Chrome comes out, less than 10% of the browsers in use will play WebM while 90% (all but Chrome) will play H.264 natively.

Huh?

Chrome, Firefox and Opera will not play h264. That's nearly 50% global market share (in Europe, Firefox is the top browser).

When Firefox 4 is released, most Firefox users will start using it, which means that in addition to the 10-15% market share of WebM-supporting Chrome versions, WebM-supporting Firefox versions will add to that, so that it adds up, to nearly 50% over a few months. And Chrome is growing extremely fast.

On the other hand, Safari has a mere 5% share of the market. And as history shows, uptake of new IE versions is extremely slow, so h264 supporting browsers will be lucky if their collective market share is more than 10% at the end of 2011.

Add to this the fact that all you need to do on Windows and Mac is to install the WebM codec on the system, and IE9 and Safari will suddenly support it. As far as I know. On the other hand, Chrome, Firefox and Opera are apparently not going to allow h264 to be used at all.

Quote:

And that doesn't even get into the quality and performance issues where WebM is severely lacking.

Because it deals a blow to a closed standard which is incompatible with an open web. ...

To the contrary, This action by Google props up a proprietary plugin, Flash, and seeks to eventually replace it with another proprietary technology that isn't open or standard. The only open standard in the game, compatible with an open web, is H.264, WebM is an impostor.

What the W3C says on the matter is irrelevant, because H.264 is not listed in W3C's HTML5 specification - neither is webM - because the specification leaves it up to the Browser developers (And by extension, the market) to decide which codec or codecs to use. By your argument, browsers shouldn't support JPEG, MP3, AAC (And I could go on).

No, what the W3C has to say is extremely important, because their patent policy defines what an open web standard should look like. It doesn't matter that the specification allows for any codec. The point is whether h264 can count as an open standard in the context of the web, which it clearly cant.

Quote:

You know what I hate about FOSS Advocates, and the majority of people bleating about "The Open Web"? They're hypocrites. They go on and on endlessly about how if things aren't "free" or "open", they're inherently evil, because they present barriers to this and that. So as a solution, they advocate ripping these things out and using FOSS equivalents, licensed under things like GPL, and enforcing this change on everyone.

I'm not a FOSS advocate, but I'm definitely an open web advocate. Aren't you? Do you not thing that universal access to the web should be a basic right? That access to the web is fundamental in our society, because so many businesses and services rely on it?

Of course we should enforce an open web. Anything else would be utterly insane.

Quote:

I don't know about you, but my definition of free and open means giving commercial products a chance too. Free and open should mean you're free to choose and access is available to everyone.

Standards are standards. Open standards are a necessity for universal access to everyone.

Quote:

Quite what makes FOSS Advocates think they own the web, or that the vast majority of consumes actually care about their ideological battle with commercial software vendors, is beyond me.

It's the openness that made the web possible and successful in the first place.

You are just fighting straw men. FOSS boogiemen everywhere. You sound desperate.

The W3C hasn't specified any codec standards, nor are they likely to, so your entire argument on that basis is moot. H.264 is an open standard.

No, h264 is not an open standard. Even Microsoft agrees that an open standard must be royalty-free.

Quote:

WebM isn't any kind of standard, and it's particularly not an open standard. WebM is controlled by a single company, Google

WebM is not a standard, but it's open, and a separate open-source project. Google is only one of several sponsors. But the important part is that Google gave everyone an eternal, irrevocable free license to use WebM. That means that WebM can be standardized and become an open standard.

Quote:

The bottom line is that Google loses the whole argument about open standards because WebM isn't any kind of standard

It doesn't have to be. Like HTML5 before it, it can be submitted to the W3C or other standards bodies after the basic work has been done.

Quote:

The thing I'm finding the most disturbing about this entire scenario is discovering just how completely uncritical the thought of so many open source advocates.

And what about the Apple fanboys who bash Google just because they fear the competition for Apple?

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse

It doesn't show anything of the kind. Google is notorious for stealing the intellectual property of others -- just look at the wholesale copyright infringement that is the Google Books Program. They just think they are big enough and have enough lawyers to get away with it. They were wrong about that with Android, and they will be wrong in regard to WebM.

It most certainly does show that. If Google violates any patents, any patent owner will obviously go after them for the big bucks. There have been a lot of claims about WebM violating patents, but not a single actual case. Put up or shut up.

No, what the W3C has to say is extremely important, because their patent policy defines what an open web standard should look like. It doesn't matter that the specification allows for any codec. The point is whether h264 can count as an open standard in the context of the web, which it clearly cant. ...

According to your argument, neither Flash (which Google continues to strongly support, nor WebM can be part of an "open web" either. Neither is a standard nor open, both are controlled by single companies. So, following your logic, The W3C has no option of endorsing anything, making the entire line of reasoning meaningless.

To the contrary, This action by Google props up a proprietary plugin, Flash, and seeks to eventually replace it with another proprietary technology that isn't open or standard.

WebM is not proprietary. Google has given out an unlimited and irrevocable free license for it.

Flash is not being propped up. It's just used as a way to continue to support video on the web. And it is a separate plugin, which the HTML spec explicitly allows for. So plugins, even proprietary ones, do not mean a closed web.

Quote:

The only open standard in the game, compatible with an open web, is H.264, WebM is an impostor.

False. Did you look up the W3C patent policy yet?

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse

According to your argument, neither Flash (which Google continues to strongly support, nor WebM can be part of an "open web" either. Neither is a standard nor open, both are controlled by single companies. So, following your logic, The W3C has no option of endorsing anything, making the entire line of reasoning meaningless.

I never claimed that Flash is open. Flash is a plugin, while this is a discussion about native video support in web browsers. Supporting plugins is perfectly fine according to the HTML specification. And it's a way for Chrome to support just about all video sites on the entire web while they work on transitioning everyone towards native video using WebM.

The W3C publishes open standards. They have shown that open standards are vital for an open web.

H.264 is an open standard, and there are no W3C standards on codecs, nor will there be, so your argument is meaningless. WebM is not open nor is it a standard, it's completely controlled by one company, Google, so there's no difference in that regard between WebM and Flash.

H264 is not an open standard. Once again, stop making this false assertion, and educate yourself by reading the W3C patent policy.

Just because there is no standard video codec doesn't mean you get to choose some random closed codec and call it open.

WebM is open. It's freely available. No fees. Google has given away any right to collect fees or restrict people from using it. Just like W3C members have to do when an upcoming standard might infringe on their patents. If they do, they have to let the W3C know that the standard will infringe on a patent, and either allow for royalty-free use, or raise an official patent claim, which will then be investigated by the W3C.

And it just so happens that Apple has raised at least two patent objections against the upcoming W3C Widgets standard. Apple refused to allow royalty-free use, so either the W3C had to change the standard, or they would have to spend countless months investigating the patent claims from Apple. Which they did. They concluded that Apple's patent claims against the upcoming W3C Widgets standard were bogus.

But if Google wants to play their silly game using WebM as a decoy for Flash -- why not provide an alternative decoy? That way h.264 remains viable to every browser on every OS regardless of how Google and Adobe play with each other.

Because h264 is closed, and incompatible with an open web (see the W3C patent policy).

Quote:

Originally Posted by noirdesir

Free does not equal open, and
having a price tag does not equal closed.

In the context of standards, yes, it does. Look up the W3C patent policy. Even Microsoft agrees that an open standard needs to be royalty-free.

Quote:

Flash is free (for browser vendors and end-users) but is it open?
You can open-source software but still attach patents to it.

I know what a joint venture is... But I don't understand what this has to do with my post...
I was telling an user that I don't think a 100% free and open video format may ever be a good solution!

You quoted my post in which I described the business model of the MPEG LA (without naming it) and said that my proposal (and thus the one of the MPEG LA) will not work because it is not 'commercial enough'.

My point was that if you start to describe the business model of the MGEG LA in general terms (without mentioning names) people will not criticise it for being too closed or too commercial. You even went beyond my expectations and criticised the MGEG LA's model as being too open and too non-commercial.

No, h264 is not an open standard. Even Microsoft agrees that an open standard must be royalty-free.

WebM is not a standard, but it's open, and a separate open-source project. Google is only one of several sponsors. ...

WebM isn't open. The source code is free (as in beer) but there isn't even a real specification, and Google will exercise complete control over it just as they do with Android. You're just allowing yourself to be misled by Google's hypocrtical and self-serving use of the word 'open'. That's what happens when you abandon critical thought and become a "single-issue voter", you get plated and you don't even realize it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by insike

And what about the Apple fanboys who bash Google just because they fear the competition for Apple?

I think the definition of fanboy is one who can only see the issue in a single dimension, which fits you pretty perfectly if you think people are not happy about this because, "they fear the competition for Apple." This is all about Google using it's position to sabotage the open web and take even more control of it than they exercise today. Their life blood is in controlling information and access to it, and that is what this is all about for them. Stop thinking so unidimensionally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by insike

It most certainly does show that. If Google violates any patents, any patent owner will obviously go after them for the big bucks. There have been a lot of claims about WebM violating patents, but not a single actual case. Put up or shut up.

Google has a long history of not respecting iP law, of wantonly disregarding it. They don't care if WebM is violating patents because they a) expect their own liability will be minimal, and b) think they exercise enough power to escape unscathed -- Just like in the Google Books Program. They also don't care what kind of destruction they sow as a result of this or how much it costs other companies, or how it affects users. Chaos is Google's chief competitive weapon. Create enough chaos in a market so that it becomes unstable, then, use their search revenue to move in and take over, that's their business MO.

WebM isn't open. The source code is free (as in beer) but there isn't even a real specification, and Google will exercise complete control over it just as they do with Android.

WebM is open. You have failed to address the fact that Google has given everyone a global, free, irrevocable license to WebM. This means that it could be adopted by the W3C and become a real open standard.

Quote:

You're just allowing yourself to be misled by Google's hypocrtical and self-serving use of the word 'open'. That's what happens when you abandon critical thought and become a "single-issue voter", you get plated and you don't even realize it.

On the contrary, I know exactly what "open" means, as opposted to your ignorant ramblings. Unlike you, I actually know what the W3C Patent Policy says: Did you even read it yet? You have failed to address this even once. You have also failed to address the fact that even Microsoft's definition of "open standard" requires it to be royalty-free.

Quote:

I think the definition of fanboy is one who can only see the issue in a single dimension, which fits you pretty perfectly if you think people are not happy about this because, "they fear the competition for Apple." This is all about Google using it's position to sabotage the open web and take even more control of it than they exercise today. Their life blood is in controlling information and access to it, and that is what this is all about for them. Stop thinking so unidimensionally.

Your Apple fanboyism is shining through. You are scared shitless because of the way Android is growing, and you will attack any company you perceive as a threat to Apple.

Ridding the web of a closed standard is the opposite of sabotaging the open web. It is, in fact, helping to keep the web open.

Quote:

Google has a long history of not respecting iP law, of wantonly disregarding it. They don't care if WebM is violating patents because they a) expect their own liability will be minimal, and b) think they exercise enough power to escape unscathed -- Just like in the Google Books Program.

Your constant whining about Google Books just goes to show how desperate you are to attack and smear Google. Their own liability will not be minimal if they are infringing on patents, especially since all future Android devices will support WebM natively.

Quote:

They also don't care what kind of destruction they sow as a result of this or how much it costs other companies, or how it affects users. Chaos is Google's chief competitive weapon. Create enough chaos in a market so that it becomes unstable, then, use their search revenue to move in and take over, that's their business MO.

WebM is open. You have failed to address the fact that Google has given everyone a global, free, irrevocable license to WebM. This means that it could be adopted by the W3C and become a real open standard. ...

It isn't, and it won't be, and Google will maintain complete control over it just as they do with Android. You really don't know what open means and seem to have simply confused it with free. A common mistake, but one that undermines all your arguments.

Your point being? The interest that should matter here is the interest of the open web.

And supporting Google's actions in this matter does not promote an open Web. Supporting Google promotes a Web that Google has increasing control over. If you work for Google, or a shareholder, and don't care about anything but your self interest, that may be fine. For everyone else it is, and will be, a very big problem.

H.264 is the only technology in this discussion that qualifies as an open standard under any definition.

Wrong. Even if nothing else here qualifies as an open standard, that doesn't make h264 open. Did you read the W3C Patent Policy yet? Or are you going to keep willfully ignoring facts?

Quote:

WebM is essentially the same as Flash, just controlled by Google rather than Adobe.

Nope. Just like W3C members have to choose to give royalty-free access to their patents if an upcoming standard violates one, Google chose to make WebM royalty-free, and with an irrevocable open license to do anything.

It's pretty amazing how you keep attacking Google for something irrelevant like Google Books. Using your logic, Apple would be a willful violator and hater of open web standards, since it has cockblocked the W3C Widgets standard at least twice because it allegedly infringed on Apple patents.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse

And supporting Google's actions in this matter does not promote an open Web.

Indeed. What promotes an open web is to rid it of a closed standard like h264. In other words, removing h264 and promoting WebM doesn't make it open because it's Google. It makes it open because it removes a closed standard.

Quote:

Supporting Google promotes a Web that Google has increasing control over. If you work for Google, or a shareholder, and don't care about anything but your self interest, that may be fine. For everyone else it is, and will be, a very big problem.

Desperate smearing is desperate. You need to stop obsessing over Google.

"Chrome, Firefox and Opera will not play h264. That's nearly 50% global market share (in Europe, Firefox is the top browser).

When Firefox 4 is released, most Firefox users will start using it, which means that in addition to the 10-15% market share of WebM-supporting Chrome versions, WebM-supporting Firefox versions will add to that, so that it adds up, to nearly 50% over a few months. And Chrome is growing extremely fast.

On the other hand, Safari has a mere 5% share of the market. And as history shows, uptake of new IE versions is extremely slow, so h264 supporting browsers will be lucky if their collective market share is more than 10% at the end of 2011.

Sorry guys there is no reason for Safari not to at least offer up support for WebM since there is not risk to them since they said they had no problem paying for the h.264 patents. I am an Apple fanboy as much as the next guy but that's the truth. Apple should be offering up the choice to use WebM or h.264 and LET THE MARKET DECIDE!

"open" (and by that you actually mean "free") is more important than quality or hardware support (required for decent battery life and playback of high-res video on portable devices (portable device CPUs being not powerful enough to decode high-res video in software)).

You advocate the "free" web but you're happy with Flash because Flash is a plugin.

"open" (and by that you actually mean "free") is more important than quality or hardware support (required for decent battery life and playback of high-res video on portable devices (portable device CPUs being not powerful enough to decode high-res video in software)).

You advocate the "free" web but you're happy with Flash because Flash is a plugin.

Royalty-free is a criterion for an open standard, especially on the web. And yes, for the web, open standards are fundamental. You could probably replace the web with some amazing proprietary thing, but that would be a huge step back. The innovation should happen on top of the web, not as a replacement.

Hardware support for WebM is coming, and all future Android devices will have that.

I'm not happy with Flash at all, but Flash is a necessary evil. It's what "everyone" uses for video on the web, so there's no getting around it. However, native video has yet to be clearly defined and settled on. Supporting Flash is necessary while working on eventually replacing it with native video. It's obviously a strategic and pragmatic decision to keep market share while getting the open solution out there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse

That's because you don't understand what 'open' means in this context.

The context is the web. What does the W3C Patent Policy say again? And even the likes of Microsoft?